Foreign Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Racicot.

Madam McDonough, go ahead, please.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

It's going to be really tough, because I think we have an awful lot of unanswered questions that we'd like to pursue.

The first question is a straight factual one, and maybe anyone around the table could answer.

There was to be an international donors conference, where there was hopefully going to be a serious commitment and engagement by the international community to do what I think was identified by President Préval when he came to Canada recently.

For those of us who went to Haiti on a parliamentary mission, the same thing was identified as the critical pressing priority, which was major economic activity and movement for people to have a sense there was a possibility of actually getting up off their knees economically and making some genuine progress to improve people's lives. Can you tell us whether that has happened and with what results at this point?

Secondly, Madam Bouchard, you spoke about how perceptions matter. I have to say that one of the things I found extremely difficult to deal with when I was in Haiti was on two perceptions. One was what I would call the “elephant in a room syndrome”, where everybody knew there were huge problems that were unanswered, unattended to, and unresolved around political prisoners and other kinds of prisoners who are detained, incarcerated, face no charges, and people don't even know what they're doing there, and so on. Again, there was a sense that somehow this problem was going to resolve itself.

But you have the political leadership from Lavalas still imprisoned, in some cases, and Mr. Neptune himself, the former prime minister, instead of seeing some progress in dealing with this, which I would broadly characterize as a kind of truth-and-reconciliation process. Talk about a perception problem.

Canada is closing the door to the new prime minister coming into Canada. Why is that? Is it because of close ties to Lavalas? We haven't heard any allegations on why we've taken this position. So we become implicated in that.

What can Canada do and what does Canada need to do? What must Canada do to deal with these perception problems, if not international legal problems? They must be addressed if our hands are going to be clean and if we are going to be seen as an honest broker and a genuine partner with a new Haiti under new leadership, elected with an amazing and a very strong mandate.

[Michel Chaurette]

As far as the first question is concerned, as to whether the international community has managed to respond rapidly to the priority issue, creating jobs to stabilize the country, I must say that my assessment is very negative. This was the main request made by the Haitian government in Washington.

In my opinion, this can be explained by the fact that none of the major banks, whether from Europe, Canada or from the United States, have found the appropriate administrative mechanisms to do so. Haiti's requests are dealt with like any other international investment, which takes a long time and is often poorly adapted to the situation.

I will give you a single example of the results that this entails. In Artibonite, we were helping farmers' associations to manage their water under the framework of a program. At the very same time as we were mobilizing people with a view to improving water management, we were awaiting investments from the Inter-American Development Bank intended for the repair of canals and the irrigation systems. So long as those funds were not there, everything that we were doing on the social front was useless. And what is even worse is the fact that when these people do not get that funding, this results in tensions and violence.

All of these delays and mechanisms do not square with a short-term investment strategy. That is the kind of strategy that must be used in Haiti. I can assure you that it is important to do so. It would help appease social problems.

Canada could help the situation by encouraging these banks to develop adapted administrative arrangements.

Thérèse could speak to your other questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly, please. We're at five minutes.

[Thérèse Bouchard]

I don't have the answer.

As to how Canada should behave in order to change perceptions, I believe first of all that it cannot act alone. Local justice has to intervene as well. Besides, Haiti really has to settle the issue of impunity. Finally, Canada must explain its positions. If there is no explanation to be given regarding Mr. Alexis, he must clearly state that an error has been committed. He must put an end to this saga and recognize his errors, if indeed there were any. That would be better than maintaining silence. If Canada's grounds are valid, they must be expressed and Canada should be consistent enough to turn to the courts, so that the legal basis of the accusations can be proven. Crimes against humanity are indeed a very serious issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bouchard.

I'm going to go to Mr. Martin. The government side went a little long the last time.

Mr. Martin, a very quick question.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

I have a very quick question. We have heard here in this committee that in an environment where there is endemic corruption, endemic violence, things are getting much worse, not better.

I know, Madame Bouchard, you said you must have hope. Hope is one thing, but we have to be able to move things forward.

I would submit to you that the crux, one of the issues that absolutely has to be dealt with, as we've heard, is corruption. That is the fulcrum upon which we can do development: security.

What suggestions can you give us, with your vast experience, specifically, that Canada can adopt to be able to deal with the corruption issue and ensure that the aid moneys we're putting in there are going to have long-term traction and we will see improvements on the ground in terms of education, in terms of development, in terms of the economy, and in terms of the millennium development goals, which we've signed on to?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

A very quick response.

[Pierre Racicot]

The question you are putting to me is huge. I worked in Africa for 19 years. As you can imagine, the problems were similar.

The mechanisms Canada uses to execute projects in Haiti ensure, in a reasonable way, that the funds are spent as Parliament intended, that is to say to assist the poor of the third world. Very rarely in the course of Canadian history and within the framework of CIDA budgets were significant amounts diverted from their primary objective or used for corruption. It would be quite easy to verify those facts.

Whether or not our projects are protected from corruption, this is irrelevant if the society within which we are implementing them is completely dysfunctional by reason of generalized corruption. What can we do to fight against this corruption? In my opinion, the only thing we can do is to force transparency through democratic avenues. There are other ways of making people aware, but I believe that the most important thing is to educate the public and to force people to be accountable.

In Africa, I observed some very interesting phenomena. As soon as a dictatorship fell and a more democratic government took power, transparency would suddenly result in the truth coming out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Racicot.

We will have a very quick question from Mr. Van Loan, and then we will break. We have some committee business, I remind you.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The real purpose for this study is that we've been, as a country, very committed to Haiti over some time, and we keep seeing the same record play over again and skip over again. We invest a significant amount in that country, and at some point people are going to conclude that good money is going after bad unless they begin to see significant improvements.

What is it, in previous interventions, that has been failing in Canada's effort, or what are the problems that cause us to have to be coming back to square one every time? What can you point to in Canada's efforts in the past that has failed?

[Pierre Racicot]

One reason is, as I said earlier, that we expect results in too short a term. Sometimes we fail to maintain our efforts because there is a political crisis and then we can't live with the new government or lack of government. We sort of withdraw, and then we start again.

I think we'll have to take a very courageous position that Haiti is a special case. It's in our backyard. We have no choice but to help that country out of its predicament. We're there for the long term, and we're going to work with the institutions and with the civil society for the long term and tough it through. I believe basically that's the only attitude that's going to win, unless we decide to put a blockade around Haiti and forget about it, which I think is not a real solution.

The other one is that we have to help. We have to find a way, and I believe the way is to be patient, to go in and stay for the long term.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Racicot.

I have a very quick question. How many different countries is the Centre for International Studies and Cooperation involved in, and how much money do you get from CIDA? You talked about the World Bank and other European donors. What percentage does CIDA and any government funding represent in your total budget?

[Michel Chaurette]

We have a presence in 20 countries. CIDA funding represents about 55 per cent of our resources, and our annual budget is in the order of CAN$32 million.

One third of our international program budget is currently devoted to Haiti, where there is funding from the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the European Fund and USAID. So it is very diversified.

What is the common thread among all of the countries that provide funding for Haiti, including Canada? They all use the same development tools. They begin with calls to tender, and operate with the same mechanisms that would apply for any regular situation. They don't try to identify who would be best suited to act and to make a difference. This is repeated in any number of countries. We are currently in Nepal, Guatemala, and Bolivia, and the same behaviours occur whenever there is a conflict. The international community does not yet have a mechanism that can be used in countries undergoing a crisis. This is what Canada is now doing in Haiti. We are seeking proposals instead of trying to determine who would be the best one for the job.

That is part of the response, and part of the inefficiency inherent in cooperation mechanisms as they apply to countries in crisis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're in 20 countries. To be honest, every group that comes forward here is just frustrated with what's happening in Haiti, and they aren't certain they're delivering in the very best possible way.

What countries would you say are the model countries? I know every country is different, and you can't say this worked in Bolivia, so it's going to work in Haiti. But what countries are the big success stories for the Centre for International Studies and Cooperation?

What area of expertise...what area were you involved in? Was it agricultural, or...?

[Michel Chaurette]

I must first tell you that Haiti is the most difficult country that we are involved in.

Second, one of the countries where we have been most successful is Nepal. We managed to work in the areas under Maoist control. How did we manage? Two reasons. First, our programs are based on the needs of the people, are something that the people want, and in which they are willing to take part. That is what good development is all about. A good approach to development is also possible in Haiti.

I explained the problem earlier: the aid structure destabilizes programs that have been successful at a local level, because they are constantly aligned with ever-changing governments in crisis. In Nepal, we managed to work with local communities while influencing national policies, government crises notwithstanding. But it requires a great deal of continuity in our actions.

So we need local participation and a strategy, along with what I would call policy feedback. How did we manage this at the local level? For example, this experience allowed us to influence the national irrigation credit policy. Our success also helped us to influence the Asian Development Bank in its approach to Nepal. I would say that the secret to our success in Nepal lies with the people, including the Maoists, who acknowledge that the project works well and provides results, and who want it to continue.

Were the people of Haiti allowed to tell the international community that a given local project is important and that they wanted it to continue? No. The dialogue is always with the governments whose agenda is very different and who shut out the local communities.

That is what I would like to impress upon you: the success of the CECI, throughout the world, can be attributed to its close link to the communities. Over the long term, that is what ensures development and builds civil societies and provides for reasoned development, and a return to government. These populations eventually have something to say to their government. They have gained a means to influence and to dialogue and are worthy of consideration. That was accomplished through literacy programs for women.

I will tell you a brief story. In Nepal, a woman told me that she really began to exist after she learned to write her name. That is what I am talking about. That is development, and not economic growth. We are talking about developing the people. I think this recipe can be used in Haiti. It is possible to work in Haiti if the international community allows it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chaurette.

We aren't going to suspend or adjourn; I'm just going to ask you to perhaps feel free to leave. We have a little bit of committee business. But we do want to thank you for coming. We learn so much from every person who comes here.

I think all sides of this issue get frustrated when we see a country that we want to see develop, have their democracy develop--all aspects of the country--and it just seems to be stalled. So we thank you for your work and for coming here today.

Committee members, please stay. We'll go very quickly to a very brief piece of committee business, one motion.

We have a notice of motion brought forward by Madame Lalonde. The proper timing has been given, and Madame Lalonde will not be here tomorrow, so she has asked that this be brought forward today. The motion is as follows:

That the committee recommends that the government join the 45 countries in favour of the negotiation of an international treaty on arms trade and clearly indicate its support for the adoption of global transfer principles at the next United Nations Conference on small arms and light weapons, scheduled to open on June 26. The committee recommends that the government asks Canada's representative present at that same conference to take up the matter strongly with other countries on the considerable and negative impact the proliferation of small arms and light weapons has on the development of countries affected and on human rights.

Madame Lalonde, do you want to speak to your motion, very quickly?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you.

It is a simple motion that does not represent a great commitment for the government. It says what should be said, and I feel that it represents what the people from the coalition have told us. They are expecting Canada to take a firm stand in the preparation of a treaty to prevent the proliferation of small arms. That is all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Lalonde.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

My colleague Peter Van Loan just went to the washroom, so I guess I will have to take his spot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Here he comes.

Thank you so much, Mr. Obhrai, for summing up Mr. Van Loan's position on this.

[Laughter]

Go ahead, Peter, on the motion.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

We're obviously comfortable with the motion. I think we've said that before a number of times.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Just for clarification,

Ms. Lalonde, I would like the following words to be added to the end of the first paragraph: “2006 in New-York.”

We would add in “2006 in New York”. It's just to be specific. I mean, if you read it in a year or two....

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

As usual, Mr. Patry, you are absolutely right.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

That's fine. That's the only thing.

It's fine, Mr. Chair.